Related

38 thoughts on “Sun clues”

Ab, perhaps you’re unsure how “this video proves a flat earth” because it in fact does not prove a flat earth. It doesn’t prove anything except flat-earth fakery’s delusional overestimation of its ability to fool an audience.

This video is fake physics, much like the 9/11 hoax, the moon landing hoax, etc., etc. The video doesn’t even attempt a serious argument. It shows us moving pictures, makes random assertions, and expects the viewer to believe a fairytale. There’s no there there.

Happily, we’re not going to fall for it. What’s more, we now know our existing areas of research are on track and the Powers That Be are worried. Otherwise this comical flat-earth stumbling block would not have appeared in our path.

What’s wrong with flat earth fakery is it’s designed to change the subject, direct us away from investigating paradigm-shifting hoaxes in which the criminals in power have an active political stake, and send us down a maze of endless frivolous musings on topics of no importance to the Powers That Be.

When you change the subject to the flat earth, the terrorists win. Only the media fakery angle makes this otherwise ludicrous topic worth discussing, because the flat earth hoax is (alternative) media fakery at its finest.

However, if you would be willing to lend your credibility and debating skills to a specific flat earth claim in this video, that would make for an interesting discussion. Meanwhile, a flat earth video is worth as much as a documentary about 19 Arabs with box cutters.

No Simon, what’s sad is your dismissive nature of my queries. While you have provided what I think is the answer to 9/11, you tell us all to wait for your revelatory solar system explanation. This website is not cluesforum, and is simply a log of my exploration of the media that I am forever suspicious of. The avalanche of propaganda from NASA and now flat earth material is what I am now consuming and questioning. It is the dominant meme right now and I’m trying to address it. You belittling of my highlighting of what I think are points that many others are confused about is doing nothing to further our understanding. Why don’t you tell us what’s wrong with the information? Are some of the videos fake? Contrived? Missing important features that indicate fakery? I am a consumer of media, not a researcher. I like to discuss it with other skeptics. I am not here to make pronouncements on what model is correct in this ball earth skeptic debate. When people I respect are equally confused, than I know we have a problem that will take time to flush out. You asking when the farce will end is farcical in itself: my investigation will stop when I choose to stop listening. That time may not coincide when the information stops flowing, however. At the moment, there seems to be no end to the logarithmic increase in material. Is it the biggest psyop of all time? Perhaps, but wishing it away doesn’t help me or others that are following this.

Why not the “ball earth” model as well?
A couple of month’s ago I heard someone in a chat saying: “they”learned us reading and writing for bringing us on the wrong track and keeping us on the wrong track. Since a couple of years this is my convinction as well. Everything is about denaturing a human being, buiding up a false matrix and compartimentalization. They make you dependend on their system, so they can do what they want to do with you. Why should the “ball earth” model an exception?

Ab wrote:“Is it the biggest psyop of all time? Perhaps, but wishing it away doesn’t help me or others that are following this.”

I suppose that by “it” – you mean the “FE meme”, Ab? If so, yes, it is probably one of the biggest psyops of all time – and I have every good reason to be sad about the fact that you keep regularly promoting it here at your place, a site which I read everyday. In fact, for me to say that I’m “sad” about what’s going on here is the mildest way I can think of to vent my frustration over your escalating promotion of the FE-farce. To be sure, this is one of the few websites in the entire world I’ve considered to be serious and trustworthy in later years – and I wish you thank you once again for your support / mirroring / backing up / and your own admirable research into media / nuke / NASA / ‘terror’ fakery and similar core topics tackled on my own discussion site, Cluesforum.

Now, regarding the FE farce (so obviously launched by the NASA damage-control /propaganda dept) – what on Earth makes you ‘sit on the fence’ about it? Far from wishing to tell you WHAT to think or (gawd forbid) HOW to run this place of yours, I am only asking you – in all sincerity and with good, heartfelt intentions – to simply start thinking for yourself!

Your ‘response’ to my brief / uncomplicated USHUAIA-ALERT point was a depressingly vacuous non-response. If the FE model can’t even account for the OBSERVED DAYLIGHT AROUND THE WORLD – what else needs to be pointed out for you – in order for you to take a firm, intelligent, no-nonsense stance on the subject? And instead of asking ME to tackle the “200 proofs” published on Dubay’s site, wouldn’t it be more reasonable for you to ask DUBAY to tackle my ONE, single USHUAIA-ALERT point? Please try and do just that – as soon as you possibly can – and see what Dubay has to say about it. After all, the burden of proof for the FE theory lays on Dubay and his cronies – not on me (or anyone else). Fair deal? I hope so.

sincerely, Simon

ps: I trust you realized (and appreciated) how typical and predictable it was for that “anounceofsaltperday” Goldbog-peddling clown to ‘bail out’ of this site – the moment that I called him out on his bs. Had he not been ‘hugging up’ to the Cluesforum findings for several months – and even tried hard to invite me on a radio podcast? Why would a single, confrontational post of mine make him bail out of this place? Has he got no balls at all? He surely seemed like a guy proud of his Big Round Balls. Well, the salt guy turned out to be a supporter of “rockets in space”. What a surprise…

Simon, I’ll try and get Jeran and the others who appear on his show to answer this question. As for Frank, he said he’d leave after getting an apology. Other than his Goldbuggery, I found Frank to be reasonable on many topics. I don’t believe in tossing people out on their ear on one disagreement – if I did, then there would be no-one else here but me. Also, why do you insist on calling everyone who questions the shape of the earth a flat earther? Must one make a choice? Must I explain the dynamics of each system? Must a 9/11 skeptic explain every level of the deception? Are YOU a ball earth skeptic, or are you happy with the entire heliocentric, gravity, and blue marble official stories promoted by NASA?

We the social engineers, the designators of “cool”, hereby decree that everyone shall choose to either (1) change the subject of their independent research to questions about the shape of the Earth or (2) believe NASA. Since we already know that disbelief in NASA is a core element of your community’s doctrine, this means you must drop, or significantly downplay, all other topics of research and focus instead on whether the Earth is a ball, a bowl, a pancake or a hotdog, until we say stop.

“Also, why do you insist on calling everyone who questions the shape of the earth a flat earther? Must one make a choice? Must I explain the dynamics of each system? Must a 9/11 skeptic explain every level of the deception?”

Yes, Ab. A serious 9/11 skeptic should naturally aspire to uncover every level of the deception. I honestly think that, over the years, we’ve come pretty darn close to achieving just that – over at Cluesforum.

In any case, I have no idea why you even compare the 9/11 psyop to the FE psyop. Oh well, perhaps I have – but just don’t get me going about it – I’d probably just start laughing uncontrollably – since I’m just human.

To be sure, as concerns the FE psyop, you haven’t even STARTED to uncover it, Ab. Bottom level is where you’re at, my friend. You’re quite clearly – at this time – personally stuck SMACK in the middle of the NASA-produced farce, and seemingly loving it too! What a sorry sight. [*sheds a tear*]

Perhaps your newly ‘re-flourished’ chat pal Eviledna/Psyopticon can help you see through the bewildering psyop fog?

But hey, I’ll always be there when you need me. Just give me a shout – if ever things get out of hand.

Thanks for your heartfelt outreach, Simon. If you keep following the blog, you will see how it all plays out. In the meantime, I’m sure I’m not the only one who is eager to get your view on all the details of earth that you think the ball earth skeptics have so wrong.

I personally asked a family member, a retired overseas commercial 747 airline pilot if he takes into account the rotation of the earth when flying to Europe and the Middle East. He replied, “No, only wind currents”.

I personally asked a retired senior air force officer, an award winning aeronautics instructor, 2 specific questions: “Why did Red Bull Stratos sky diver Felix Baumgartner
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Stratos#Jump_and_descent) land in eastern New Mexico rather than western New Mexico if his descent took 10 minutes and the earth below him is traveling at 1,000 mph [16 miles a minute]. Why did he not land 160 miles to the west of his original location? [16 miles a minute x 10]

The retired officer grew excited at the problem, retrieved a globe from his classroom and attempted to solve the problem for me. “I teach aeronautics.” he said as he looked at his globe. His aide joined him and they discussed the problem. After several minutes, the aeronautics instructor confessed he could not give me an explanation.

I took the globe from him. I pointed to a city and asked, “If a plane was flying from the south, and into its final approach, if the plane was facing north, would the pilot not have to take into account the eastward rotation of the earth at 16 miles per minutes. Would the pilot not have to lead the runway eastward to hit it?

He told me a plane begins its final approach at 10, 000 feet, its airspeed slows down, and… and… he sputtered to a stop. With a grin on his face and a twinkle in his eye, Mr. Simon Shack, this air force aeronautics instructor could not answer my question as I stood in his office next to his classroom. “It seems you would have to account for the earth’s rotation.” he muttered. “But I am only aware of the pilot accounting for cross winds.”

“For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
Ecclesiastes 1:18

Please tell use all the things you think are wrong with it. That’s why I posted it.

The so-called flat earther’s have proved one thing: “the ball earth” model which we have been growing up with, has some terrible flaws. JLB challenged khammad and Simon Shack. Khammad knocked off, as I espected, making the thing far more worse, by stating in a chat with you: oh, we do live on a much greater eartball. Where are the proof’s khammad? None zero, zilt nada, to say it ala J. Fetzer. Anyway it changed your mindset. Simon Shack is working on his own model. Conclusion he knows to that there is some wrong with this current model. What the flat-earther’s bring forward is very difficult to tackle.
When it comes to the point: a model, one can work with it, but when it is not proven for 100% correct, it is and will stay a guess and is not knowing. Same with Big Bang nonsense, Steady State model, electric universe, hollow earth theorie, give it a name. It is and will stay a hypothesis till the whole thing is proven correct.

I have like many others followed this flat earth thing since february, and many of the points (if not most) are hard or almost impossible to refute.

I know Simon and others, even Jay weidner (wich is a red flag in itself, since hes an actual ” confirmed” Nasa gatekeeper, “exposing” the moon landing yet claiming we went there, in a hidden space program Hoagland style) claim this FE thing is a Nasa damage control project.

This might to some extent be true, and i personally belive they at least try to steer it, possibly with mark or math , eric or Jeranism being agents (or maybe they are late to the race and patricia steere is theire doing?) .

That being said, i have failed to pin any single one of them down as deliberatly spreading disinfo (Mark is the obvious one that ppl claim, but he also has moments where he actually sounds like what he says is what he belives in , in my opinion anyway).

I am like many others watching this from the sidelines before seeing where it goes, but my “faith” in the ball earth has all but vanished.

Also in my opinion, If this turns out to be a NASA damage control project, didnt they fail hard? and instead create a growing group that wants theire head (the FE’s and ball earth sceptics) ?

Things like this give me hope it actually is a real “resistance movement” to NASA or at worst some sort of out of control failed discredit attempt.

Cause when we go by what we know as almost hard fact at this point :

-Nasa lies
-Earth is not spinning round ball

It really makes me hope the FE and Ball earth skeptic movements eventually grow big enough to make NASA fall anyway, and when they do, wont we discover the real truth in the ruins/basement of NASA?
Flat, round, pear or otherwise 🙂

One question: does anyone here think that ships disappearing over the horizon is proof of a convex Earth ?
You won’t be alone if you do. The BBC’s Brian Cox says so along with millions of text books around the world. This so-called ‘proof’ of a round Earth was apparently first thought of by another great mainstream brain, Aristotle.

I don’t think it is proof of a round Earth. I think it’s simply perspective that makes objects appear to disappear, to the eye, from the bottom up, as they go into the distance.
I don’t think I’m being particularly clever in coming to that conclusion, either.
It’s simply a well documented law of perspective that would be present on any surface, isn’t it ?

When we look at people walking away into the distance they will appear to lose their legs at a certain point. Similarly a line of telegraph poles will be seen to descend to the horizon, shrinking bottom-up.
The ships-disappearing-at-sea thing is no proof of what shape the Earth is at all.
It’s merely consistent with what we know about perspective.

When I first looked at this ‘ evidence of a round Earth’ I thought that it was merely ‘old science’. I genuinely expected to find that this ‘old proof’ had long since been since discovered to be merely an understood ‘trick’ of perspective and thrown-out as an understandable, but false assumption.

And this from a Princeton teacher’s guide:if the Earth is round, then objects which travel away from you along the surface of the Earth will disappear from view at a certain distance. More interesting is that they disappear from the bottom up. Think of a friend walking over a hill. If you watch her from one side of the hill as she walks over the hill, her feet will disappear first and then her legs and body followed by her head. This is one way ancient sailors knew that the Earth must be rounded like a hill. They could see the tall masts of ships long after their hulls as the boats receded far away.

From my point of view, ships disappearing over the horizon as proof of round Earth is clearly false and yet Science still promotes this as evidence of a round Earth.
Regardless of what shape you think Earth is, surely this is bad science and we should be pointing it out.

Why does Science appear to promote the ships disappearing idea as proof of a round Earth when it’s not ? This seems highly dubious to me.

Please clear it up if you can. I may well be missing something.
I get things wrong all the time. I’m open. I’ve got no desire to go around looking silly suggesting something that’s provably wrong. However, my question remains until I read or hear something to change it.
………………………………………………………..

I think these stop-frame animations of the Sun are great. Long-time British goto-for-space-stuff bloke, Patrick Moore always used to tell me to ‘never look at the Sun’. He said I’d ‘go blind’.

I relish the chance to actually be able to study the Sun’s path in the sky as it appears to us.
I make no leaps , but I do see that it certainly can appear to move in a way consistent with what you might expect a Sun to do in a ‘low’ orbit over us as it rises towards us and then descends away behind the horizon. This would appear consistent with what the laws of perspective tell us.

That alone makes the above video interesting to me, regardless of any other conclusions it may draw.

LSC’s theory deserves attention, if only to begin to think critically about arguments against the flat earth. He cites the angle of sunlight, the phases of the moon, the rotation of the southern stars, the possiblility of booking ( and taking) flights under 12 hours from South America to Australia as arguments against FE. And what about the horizon? Does the fact that it always appears at eye level really indicate a flat earth? Surely we would be looking down at the horizon if the earth were flat ( the drop just being less sharp than on a globe? Another point that I have not heard discussed much are geometrical lines that seem to connect special sites of ( Masonic?) significance. Most of these researchers use the globe model to trace them out. Would this also work on a flat earth? These alignments seem to exist ( Secrets in Plain Sight etc) so what’s going on? I am just as confused as Ab and smj. In addition LSC has dug up fascinating information about megacryometeorites/Libyan desert glass falling from a putative glass sky, A few months ago his videos were getting more attention than FE ( he even started posting long before the current FE explosion) . So again, what is going on? Who’s pulling the strings ( if strings indeed are being pulled or is it only legs)?

hi smj – I love your stuff and wish I could read it all on one blog or something instead of having it scattered all over here and cluesforum like confetti!
I was listening to this podcast today gnosticwarrior.com/gary-gianotti-3.html
and was wondering if gianotti’s research meshes with yours as far as families are concerned. He researches American relics such as seals and flags and seems to be saying ( I might be wrong because he jumps around like a flea on a kangaroo’s back) that the United States was born out of a Scottish plot to get Bonnie Prine Charlie on the throne as King of Anerica. This plot was thwarted somehow by the rival Hannoverians but the bottom line is that royal Scottish ( sorry Mojo!) and Holy Roman Empire bloodlines were and still are the string-pullers. He says too that the Scottish Drummond family financed the Rothschilds and today both families are closely intermarried. he claims that in many cases the families have even forgotten their own histories and sometimes employ/work with him to recover it. The reason I am interested in pursuing it is because it links up nicely with my own research into chronology fakery as detailed by Dr Christopher Pfister and others. what’s your take on Gary?

i’ve never heard of gianotti. i’m not a grand thesis type; however, i do agree with those that don’t believe the chronology of the narrative. we’ve been told a bunch of bullshit stories our whole lives; and apparently gullible apes love a good story so any ole date will do.

and i don’t have the resources nor the proclivity to start a decent blog. which is fortunate because i couldn’t deal with the graffiti from the shills nor the heroic shill-hunters’ (perhaps shills themselves) pleas for doctrinal discipline that ab, chris, and cluesforum have to deal with. i reckon i’m too busy paying attention to the absurdity of it all anyway.

Sorry ab, I meant to reply before. I wrote a couple of garbled replies and didn’t post them.

I’m certainly still taking it all in. In that sense I don’t mind you posting this stuff.
Just like you posted Matt Boylan two years ago and we saw the flipped NASA artist turned Flat Earth comedian and kind of concluded we didn’t buy his act.

Some of us didn’t buy Mark Sargeant from the get go, either. Your ‘wow’ moment worried a few people as Mark’s – good audio – hypnotic tones, took us to a new glass-domed Nirvana. You weren’t the only one to have a ‘wow’ moment though. I did when looking at the shape of the Earth question last year. Plenty have, and with justification.
The natural world and the true nature of our reality is amazing when you start really looking at it, I would suggest.

Suddenly, though, we knew about Eric Dubay and then Jeranism and then the youtubers like peekay and russianvids , Jungle Surfer, Dave J were doing stuff on it. Sargeant encouraged anyone, regardless of the nature of their video – it could be a video on knitting for eg – to call it Flat Earth (Knitting). Gym going New Yorker David Weiss hussled Flat Earth energetically encouraging John Le Bon to begin his Ball Earth Skeptics round table series.

I said at the time I was suspicious and it seemed like a controlled ‘movement’ to me and that Simon Shack’s DBA strategy held some water.
That said , my position, was and is, that I have big questions about the entire model.
I still think John Le Bon can hold his head up in the debate.

Perhaps the Illuminati playing cards tell us something.

People laugh but the Flat Earthers know something.</em>

This movement perhaps seeks to promote Flat Earth as a quirky belief system- it provides some kind of alternative model and has some compelling ideas – whilst attaching it to ‘cutting edge’ research. ISS Globebusters Live for example.

The fact alone that the Globebusters crew appeared to take a turn away from Cluesforum to Joody Wood on the inspirational advice of Matrix Decoded makes them a bit of a joke to me, whatever else they’re saying. If they’re the cutting edge of NASA research, then that’s a bit of a concern.

That said, I still find some interest in their stuff and stop frame Sun animations etc. You know, you take things from it.
The whole subject fascinates me, but I think we know already that we’re in a field where we’re surrounded by jokers.

Yes, Tom, jokers is the right word! But it is still a cracking mystery, isn’t it? Full of clues, red herrings, bluffs and counter-bluffs, villains, heros, and suspicious characters toying with globes and frisbees. Like one giant Whodunnit, really, from the Golden Age of Detective Fiction – but with the dénoument torn outdictionary.reference.com/browse/denouement

I don’t think anyone has a copy of the dénouement, so until it becomes available ( or Hercule Poirot turns up) let’s enjoy the process of detecting the clues at the risk of having our legs pulled now and again!

@Ab, as a loyal follower who has been here since episode 2, in days of Robin Fisher and Markus Allen, let me say your instincts are right-“Stay the course” and allow the others to catch up with you.

I have posted here before a picture of the Chicago skyline visible at 50 miles from Indian Dunes State park.

chicagocamping.org/chicago-campgrounds-indiana-dunes-state-park/
On a field trip with my 9th grade biology class in the mid-70’s I stood on the shore and looked through my teacher’s binoculars and viewed the skyline for myself. According to the formula we are given for the drop below the horizon on a ball earth 50 miles x 50 x 8 inches = a drop of 1666 feet. I should not be able to see what is visible in the attached picture.

Is there anyone out there who thinks FE is a PSYOP willing to provide me with an explanation for something I have personally witnessed?

While I am at it, is there anyone who thinks FE is a PSYOP willing to respond to the post I made to the inimitable Simon Shack in case he overlooks it?

I have re posted it below for everyone’s convenience.

Re: FE as PSYOP- I look at the evidence/argument when evaluating a claim, not the person proffering it, lest I be guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

I was the first person to post here evidence to refute Mark Sargeant’s evidence of unusual air routes in the southern hemisphere. Look up his first video Ab posted.

As I said Ab, keep doing what you are doing. Let the other’s catch up. For my money, you remain the clearest thinker I have encountered in the Wilderness of Mirrors known as The Information Age.

Here is the reply I had to Simon Shack post below where he questions Ab for pursuing this subject. I welcome comments.

@Simon Shack

I personally asked a family member, a retired overseas commercial 747 airline pilot if he takes into account the rotation of the earth when flying to Europe and the Middle East. He replied, “No, only wind currents”.

I personally asked a retired senior air force officer, an award winning aeronautics instructor, 2 specific questions: “Why did Red Bull Stratos sky diver Felix Baumgartner
(en.wikipedia.org…) land in eastern New Mexico rather than western New Mexico if his descent took 10 minutes and the earth below him is traveling at 1,000 mph [16 miles a minute]. Why did he not land 160 miles to the west of his original location? [16 miles a minute x 10]

The retired officer grew excited at the problem, retrieved a globe from his classroom and attempted to solve the problem for me. “I teach aeronautics.” he said as he looked at his globe. His aide joined him and they discussed the problem. After several minutes, the aeronautics instructor confessed he could not give me an explanation.

I took the globe from him. I pointed to a city and asked, “If a plane was flying from the south, and into its final approach, if the plane was facing north, would the pilot not have to take into account the eastward rotation of the earth at 16 miles per minutes. Would the pilot not have to lead the runway eastward to hit it?

He told me a plane begins its final approach at 10, 000 feet, its airspeed slows down, and… and… he sputtered to a stop. With a grin on his face and a twinkle in his eye, Mr. Simon Shack, this air force aeronautics instructor could not answer my question as I stood in his office next to his classroom. “It seems you would have to account for the earth’s rotation.” he muttered. “But I am only aware of the pilot accounting for cross winds.”

“For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
Ecclesiastes 1:18

If a plane was flying from the south, and into its final approach, if the plane was facing north, would it not have to take into account the eastward rotation of the earth at 16 miles per minutes. Would the plane not have to lead the runway eastward to hit it?

The plane obviously has to lead the runway in order to hit it, as basic kinematics tells us, but this isn’t something the pilot has to think about. Since the atmosphere is, on a macro scale, stuck to the surface of the Earth, it shares whatever motion the Earth has. This motion of the atmosphere gives the plane the required eastward velocity to match the Earth’s rotation.

The preceding “orthodox” (though not for that reason infallible) answer concerns the rotation of the Earth, which of course is a different issue to the shape of the Earth.

Is a goldfish swimming north in a goldfish bowl on an eastbound train required to also have an eastward component of motion equal to that of the train? Obviously. Must the goldfish itself recognize and compensate for this motion of the train while swimming in its bowl? Obviously not.

Unlike airplanes and goldfish, which are carried along by the motion of their mediums, meteors entering the atmosphere from space are often so massive, dense and fast-moving that the medium through which they’re moving has less effect. So, when projecting the point of impact of a meteor, the rotation of the Earth does have to be taken into account, and you do see a curved “Coriolis effect” path due to the Earth’s rotation.

Again, this information about meteors is the “orthodox” view which I haven’t personally confirmed. If you can make a case debunking it, I’m sure every fakeologist would like to see your argument.

@Clueseau,
I once asked the retired 747 pilot what would happen if all of the engines failed, would the jet liner glide to the Earth? “No.” he said. “It would glide like a rock.”
So my question is, take a 747, traveling at a cruising speed of 565 mph at 35, 000, all engines stop, given its forward inertia, would you calculate the earth’s rotation in projecting its landing path or would the ‘medium’ obviate any need?

I’ve heard enough audios on BE skepticism to say that the Coriolis effect is more nonsense to cover for other problems with the ball earth model. It’s even weaker and more specious than the gravity theory.

You can prove to yourself that the sun does not change size during the day by using a telescope with a special attachment – actually a small screen – which lets you to project an image of the sun onto it through the eyepiece. Such attachments are normally used for observing sunspots and the transit of planets. For the current purpose, simply track the sun throughout the day and see that the size of its projection on the attachment remains constant. This means the size of the sun in the sky is constant.

Happy observing, and remember to never look at the sun through the telescope.

Thank you Cluseau, very thoughtful. Don’t do it kids.
At least not without some kind of well attached solar filter!

And wo/man, I’m just thinking this through. I don’t think I’m that clever.

So okay. forgetting atmospheric refraction at the horizon which can enlarge the image of the Sun, I’ll go with the Sun appearing to remain the same size through most of the day, up to the zenith and down.
I’m happy with that for now.

May I ask my main question again, which is still, do you think ships disappearing over the horizon is proof of a convex Earth ?

I’m saying we should be able to clearly agree this is a natural ‘trick’ of perspective and not evidence of a spherical Earth.

So okay. forgetting atmospheric refraction at the horizon which can enlarge the image of the Sun, I’ll go with the Sun appearing to remain the same size through most of the day, up to the zenith and down.

And so, if the sun remains the same visible size all day (except where atmospheric effects are a factor), it isn’t circling 3,000 miles overhead.

May I ask my main question again, which is still, do you think ships disappearing over the horizon is proof of a convex Earth ?

I’m saying we should be able to clearly agree this is a natural ‘trick’ of perspective and not evidence of a spherical Earth.

If you mean how ships disappear from the bottom up. Well, that’s what I’d call supporting evidence, not proof. There could be a different reason for it. Concerning these “trick of perspective” arguments advanced in support of the Flat Earth hoax, I’d advise caution. There is no rule of perspective that makes objects disappear with distance on a flat surface. You won’t find anything like that in a book on optics, only in the land of make believe. Trying to bamboozle an audience with smoke-and-mirrors chicanery by citing fake physics is a favorite ploy of carnival charlatans and media hoaxers.

A better argument for curvature, better than objects disappearing with distance, is that everything isn’t visible at once. On a flat Earth, all the ships of the seven seas and every mountain in the world would be above the horizon and thus within line of sight if no nearer object is blocking them. Where are they then? And this isn’t an atmospheric visibility issue. One can see starlight through the empty spaces where all those ships and mountains would be if the Earth were flat.

Clues over water, Clues/eau ?

That’s right. It’s also a play on the name of the comedic detective. My, aren’t you the clever one.

That’s right. It’s also a play on the name of the comedic detective. My, aren’t you the clever one.

I am aware of the fictional, bumbling, idiot detective Inspector Clueseau, played by Peter Sellers.
Excuse my wordplay, but in light of the question I was asking, I couldn’t resist it.

So your stance is that ships disappearing over the horizon as supporting evidence for a convex Earth is questionable.

There could be a different reason for it.

Thank you. You always make valid points.

For the record. I don’t think I’m very clever,
in fact, I know, I’m stupid.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and for helping me clear things up a little more in my own ‘bumbling idiot’ investigation.

It strikes me that our perspective is the very thing that those that look to control us set-out to hijack. and whilst I do take your advice to be cautious in evaluating things, for me there’s still some fascinating questions,